Further Reading

The complainant appears to have been an individual named Chris Jordan, who filed the complaint on behalf of Ian Bell Elite Rights LLP. Ian Bell is the co-creator of the original 1984 space combat and trading simulator Elite. Bell and partner David Braben parted ways after Elite, with Bell pursuing other interests while Braben continued developing the Elite series (Braben also was instrumental in the development of the Raspberry Pi).

At some point, Ian Bell allegedly sold his portion of the Elite copyright to Chris Jordan. In an e-mail to Spidermind Games obtained by Ars, Jordan appears unhappy that the Elite: Dangerous RPG does not credit Bell. “I’m sad to see you commercially exploiting the work of the one man without which Elite would never have existed, without permission, credit or even mention,” wrote Jordan. “Given you say you are an Elite player and fan, I’m assuming your omission isn’t through mere ignorance.”

Although Jordan filed the complaint on behalf of the Ian Bell Elite Rights LLP entity, there is no indication that Bell had any involvement in or knowledge of the RPG campaign’s takedown.

In the three weeks that the Elite: Dangerous RPG campaign has been stalled, Ars reached out numerous times to Chris Jordan and to Ian Bell for comment. Neither responded.

Spidermind issued the following statement to Ars:

Spidermind Games is in the incredibly fortunate position of having been granted a license from the creators of the iconic MMO Elite Dangerous to create a Role Playing Game in the very same galaxy enjoyed by millions of online players. In looking for funding of this project, Spidermind Games launched a call to Elite Dangerous fans and RPGers alike to help make this game a possibility through a Kickstarter campaign.

For reasons known only to themselves, three individuals, with no connection to Frontier Developments, Spidermind Games or Elite Dangerous, decided to attempt to de-rail this project by making allegations of copyright breach. In receiving this allegation Kickstarter suspended our campaign giving the accusers 10 business days to produce proof of their allegation and to begin litigation against us.

No contact was received from these individuals since that first email. To force the issue Spidermind Games even issued their own demands direct to the complaining party challenging them to produce proof of this alleged breach. Nothing has been received back.

In the intervening 3 week hiatus the campaign has lost a handful of backers and around £3,500 in possible pledges, however it is unclear, with four days left on the clock, whether there will be a return of any of these backers. The most damaging aspect for Spidermind Games was the fact that we had to stop; stop production, stop commissions and stop the many talented people who were working so hard to make this project a possibility. To their credit, some of our team told us that they would carry on regardless, because of their belief in the quality of the game. Our thanks go to them and to all our backers who kept the faith.

I am hugely encouraged already by the many comments we have had regarding our reinstatement and we are grateful for all the support.

Further Reading

Now that the campaign has been reinstated, Kickstarter is allowing it to continue for the amount of time it had left to run when it was frozen—about five days. This is standard practice: “If we are able to reinstate a project that was hidden as a result of a copyright dispute, we ‘un-pause’ its countdown clock and it proceeds normally,” explained a Kickstarter spokesperson when Ars contacted the company for comment.

The project had already crossed its funding mark when it was frozen, raising £65,407 (about $81,700) on a goal of £45,000 (about $56,200).

Disclosure: The author of this piece is a backer of the Elite: Dangerous RPG Kickstarter.

Share this story

Lee Hutchinson
Lee is the Senior Technology Editor at Ars and oversees gadget, automotive, IT, and gaming/culture content. He also knows stuff about enterprise storage, security, and human space flight. Lee is based in Houston, TX. Emaillee.hutchinson@arstechnica.com

62 Reader Comments

Statements like "I’m sad to see you commercially exploiting the work of the one man without which Elite would never have existed" always irk me. This guy himself had zero to do with Elite and is himself exploiting a copyright which he had no hand in making, speaking for a man who willingly gave up his right to anything Elite to David Braben (e.g. the guy who is actually mostly responsible for Elite as a continued series). It's the kind of hubris chest thumping lawyer-speak hyperbole that makes me nauseous.

Maybe I missed something in the article; was the campaign re-instated because Chris Jordan/Ian Bell ... failed to respond to Spidermind Games' request? Or has there been some official/legal finding that Spidermind has not violated any copyright?

I ask because, unless some important details are forthcoming (which if such exist, it seems everyone other than Chris Jordan and/or his legal representative also lack), it sounds like the claims are bullshit and I'd like to see Chris Jordan get metaphorically smushed.

Conversely, I'd really hate to see the Kickstarter complete, this little fiasco prove to be some (attempted) maneuvering on Chris Jordan's part, and he jumps out of the bushes with "Ha ha! I already told you I owned copyrights you're violating! Give me the money!".

Maybe I missed something in the article; was the campaign re-instated because Chris Jordan/Ian Bell ... failed to respond to Spidermind Games' request? Or has there been some official/legal finding that Spidermind has not violated any copyright?

I ask because, unless some important details are forthcoming (which if such exist, it seems everyone other than Chris Jordan and/or his legal representative also lack), it sounds like the claims are bullshit and I'd like to see Chris Jordan get metaphorically smushed.

Conversely, I'd really hate to see the Kickstarter complete, this little fiasco prove to be some (attempted) maneuvering on Chris Jordan's part, and he jumps out of the bushes with "Ha ha! I already told you I owned copyrights you're violating! Give me the money!".

It was just added: the accusers failed to back up their claims in the 10 business days Kickstarter gave them with the campaign on hold. Default judgement entered.

Very interesting update. I guess the point being made is that this RPG is based on Elite Dangerous, and not on the 1984 version of Elite. They only need permission from the rights-holders of Elite Dangerous.

Very interesting update. I guess the point being made is that this RPG is based on Elite Dangerous, and not on the 1984 version of Elite. They only need permission from the rights-holders of Elite Dangerous.

There were some questions about whether the license Frontier had from Bell was able to be sublicensed to a third party, but since they were unable to prove it wasn't, I think they're in the clear.

So, a tabletop game that is based on a game that has no common code of the original game which was the only version Bell had anything to do with did not credit him, and his representative is now angry because of this? And now they won't even provide evidence of answer to any parties at all? There should be a fine for wasting the time of court and halting the progress of an ongoing project causing them extra work and loss of potential customers.

So, a tabletop game that is based on a game that has no common code of the original game which was the only version Bell had anything to do with did not credit him, and his representative is now angry because of this? And now they won't even provide evidence of answer to any parties at all? There should be a fine for wasting the time of court and halting the progress of an ongoing project causing them extra work and loss of potential customers.

There was no court involved. Though someone really does need put a stop to this guilty until proven extra doubleplus guilty takedown nonsense.

Maybe I missed something in the article; was the campaign re-instated because Chris Jordan/Ian Bell ... failed to respond to Spidermind Games' request? Or has there been some official/legal finding that Spidermind has not violated any copyright?

I ask because, unless some important details are forthcoming (which if such exist, it seems everyone other than Chris Jordan and/or his legal representative also lack), it sounds like the claims are bullshit and I'd like to see Chris Jordan get metaphorically smushed.

Conversely, I'd really hate to see the Kickstarter complete, this little fiasco prove to be some (attempted) maneuvering on Chris Jordan's part, and he jumps out of the bushes with "Ha ha! I already told you I owned copyrights you're violating! Give me the money!".

It was just added: the accusers failed to back up their claims in the 10 business days Kickstarter gave them with the campaign on hold. Default judgement entered.

Maybe I missed something in the article; was the campaign re-instated because Chris Jordan/Ian Bell ... failed to respond to Spidermind Games' request? Or has there been some official/legal finding that Spidermind has not violated any copyright?

I ask because, unless some important details are forthcoming (which if such exist, it seems everyone other than Chris Jordan and/or his legal representative also lack), it sounds like the claims are bullshit and I'd like to see Chris Jordan get metaphorically smushed.

Conversely, I'd really hate to see the Kickstarter complete, this little fiasco prove to be some (attempted) maneuvering on Chris Jordan's part, and he jumps out of the bushes with "Ha ha! I already told you I owned copyrights you're violating! Give me the money!".

It was just added: the accusers failed to back up their claims in the 10 business days Kickstarter gave them with the campaign on hold. Default judgement entered.

Isn't that a Kickstarter limit, though, not a legal thing?

Yep

Kickstarter "hid" the campaign for 10 days and told the complainants to provide proof. No response so Kickstarter reactivated the campaign.

No legal finding, just a lawyer failing to meet a deadline.

Spidermind lost two weeks of fundraising and some backers who were, and may still be, scared off by a threatened lawsuit

The only penalty for the lawyer is the few minutes lost that were spent composing an email and clicking send. There will be no effect on possible legal action in the future.

So, a tabletop game that is based on a game that has no common code of the original game which was the only version Bell had anything to do with did not credit him, and his representative is now angry because of this? And now they won't even provide evidence of answer to any parties at all? There should be a fine for wasting the time of court and halting the progress of an ongoing project causing them extra work and loss of potential customers.

There was no court involved. Though someone really does need put a stop to this guilty until proven extra doubleplus guilty takedown nonsense.

Well, Kickstarter appears to be following the standard DMCA process which (IIRC) calls for 10 days after a takedown was requested for the 'nuh-uh' filing to be made before permanent removal or reinstatement. If they fully followed the DMCA process then they could have reinstated it whenever the counter notice was provided but most sites seem to follow the 10 day period.

Now, however, if they're following DMCA processes to the letter no other claim will be honored as the next, legal, step is a lawsuit against the alleged infringer and Kickstarter isn't liable to take it down if a new notice were provided after receiving a counter notice for the original complaint.

So, a tabletop game that is based on a game that has no common code of the original game which was the only version Bell had anything to do with did not credit him, and his representative is now angry because of this? And now they won't even provide evidence of answer to any parties at all? There should be a fine for wasting the time of court and halting the progress of an ongoing project causing them extra work and loss of potential customers.

Not quite.

Ian Bell has part-title to much of Elite's universe, designs, setting, etc, as he co-wrote the original Elite. Ian Bell wants nothing further to do with it, so he gave David Braben a perpetual non-exclusive license to the entire thing. This is normal, standard, it's how copyright and other IP laws work. (As an aside, Braben pulled the dick move of trying not to credit Bell for Frontier: Elite II or Frontier: First Encounters, before a more rational hand told him to stop being a dick.)

Later, Bell sold off his interest in the entire thing to this Chris Jordan fellow. So Bell has nothing to do with Jordan other than selling him some stuff. Jordan's being the dick here, he isn't representing Bell at all.

There is the nebulous threat here in that Elite: Dangerous uses Bell's original designs for things like the Anaconda, Cobra and Python. These aren't Braben's to sub-license out, he's merely a licensee himself. That's a fair stretch, however, and unlikely to form the core of any successful challenge.

If they fully followed the DMCA process then they could have reinstated it whenever the counter notice was provided but most sites seem to follow the 10 day period.

If the ACLU's text is accurate, 10 days is the minimum waiting period (Ctrl+F "not less than 10"). One presumes the intention is to allow the person who originally filed the takedown notice enough time to prepare a lawsuit against the uploader. The fact that it happens to totally screw over the uploader is definitely an unintended side effect.

So, a tabletop game that is based on a game that has no common code of the original game which was the only version Bell had anything to do with did not credit him, and his representative is now angry because of this? And now they won't even provide evidence of answer to any parties at all? There should be a fine for wasting the time of court and halting the progress of an ongoing project causing them extra work and loss of potential customers.

Not quite.

Ian Bell has part-title to much of Elite's universe, designs, setting, etc, as he co-wrote the original Elite. Ian Bell wants nothing further to do with it, so he gave David Braben a perpetual non-exclusive license to the entire thing. This is normal, standard, it's how copyright and other IP laws work. (As an aside, Braben pulled the dick move of trying not to credit Bell for Frontier: Elite II or Frontier: First Encounters, before a more rational hand told him to stop being a dick.)

Later, Bell sold off his interest in the entire thing to this Chris Jordan fellow. So Bell has nothing to do with Jordan other than selling him some stuff. Jordan's being the dick here, he isn't representing Bell at all.

There is the nebulous threat here in that Elite: Dangerous uses Bell's original designs for things like the Anaconda, Cobra and Python. These aren't Braben's to sub-license out, he's merely a licensee himself. That's a fair stretch, however, and unlikely to form the core of any successful challenge.

How was it a dick move? Bell didn't want to contribute to any further games so why should he be entitled to money for stuff he's not involved in?

Is there any proof that the Anaconda, Cobra and Python are solely Bell's work and not collaborations?

Maybe I missed something in the article; was the campaign re-instated because Chris Jordan/Ian Bell ... failed to respond to Spidermind Games' request? Or has there been some official/legal finding that Spidermind has not violated any copyright?

I ask because, unless some important details are forthcoming (which if such exist, it seems everyone other than Chris Jordan and/or his legal representative also lack), it sounds like the claims are bullshit and I'd like to see Chris Jordan get metaphorically smushed.

Conversely, I'd really hate to see the Kickstarter complete, this little fiasco prove to be some (attempted) maneuvering on Chris Jordan's part, and he jumps out of the bushes with "Ha ha! I already told you I owned copyrights you're violating! Give me the money!".

It was just added: the accusers failed to back up their claims in the 10 business days Kickstarter gave them with the campaign on hold. Default judgement entered.

Isn't that a Kickstarter limit, though, not a legal thing?

Yes, I probably shouldn't have said "default judgement". It was not determined by a court of law, only the Kickstarter takedown process. There's nothing to preclude claimants from pursuing legal action against Spidermind Games or Frontier except good sense.

Thank goodness copyright continues to not be used to limit creative expression.

That said, Kickstarter's method of dealing with this doesn't actually sound too insane. That says more about everyone else than anything about Kickstarter, through...

Sort of, although it's still problematic. As Spidermind says it's very damaging to a campaign to be put on hold for so long. And getting reinstated with very little time left runs the risk of the campaign not being able to make back what it lost. I'm not sure how they could handle it better though (except not freeze it for 3 weeks! 10 days should be enough, and if no proof is provided instant unfreeze)

So, a tabletop game that is based on a game that has no common code of the original game which was the only version Bell had anything to do with did not credit him, and his representative is now angry because of this? And now they won't even provide evidence of answer to any parties at all? There should be a fine for wasting the time of court and halting the progress of an ongoing project causing them extra work and loss of potential customers.

Not quite.

Ian Bell has part-title to much of Elite's universe, designs, setting, etc, as he co-wrote the original Elite. Ian Bell wants nothing further to do with it, so he gave David Braben a perpetual non-exclusive license to the entire thing. This is normal, standard, it's how copyright and other IP laws work. (As an aside, Braben pulled the dick move of trying not to credit Bell for Frontier: Elite II or Frontier: First Encounters, before a more rational hand told him to stop being a dick.)

Later, Bell sold off his interest in the entire thing to this Chris Jordan fellow. So Bell has nothing to do with Jordan other than selling him some stuff. Jordan's being the dick here, he isn't representing Bell at all.

There is the nebulous threat here in that Elite: Dangerous uses Bell's original designs for things like the Anaconda, Cobra and Python. These aren't Braben's to sub-license out, he's merely a licensee himself. That's a fair stretch, however, and unlikely to form the core of any successful challenge.

How was it a dick move? Bell didn't want to contribute to any further games so why should he be entitled to money for stuff he's not involved in?

Is there any proof that the Anaconda, Cobra and Python are solely Bell's work and not collaborations?

Jordan was the one who made the complaint, which was a dick move because he wasn't involved with either the original or any further games. It's also a dick move because in his complaint he acted all huffy about lack of acknowledgement for Bell thus trying to pretend a money grab was about respect for Bell when Bell himself has nothing to do with the complaint

So, a tabletop game that is based on a game that has no common code of the original game which was the only version Bell had anything to do with did not credit him, and his representative is now angry because of this? And now they won't even provide evidence of answer to any parties at all? There should be a fine for wasting the time of court and halting the progress of an ongoing project causing them extra work and loss of potential customers.

Not quite.

Ian Bell has part-title to much of Elite's universe, designs, setting, etc, as he co-wrote the original Elite. Ian Bell wants nothing further to do with it, so he gave David Braben a perpetual non-exclusive license to the entire thing. This is normal, standard, it's how copyright and other IP laws work. (As an aside, Braben pulled the dick move of trying not to credit Bell for Frontier: Elite II or Frontier: First Encounters, before a more rational hand told him to stop being a dick.)

Later, Bell sold off his interest in the entire thing to this Chris Jordan fellow. So Bell has nothing to do with Jordan other than selling him some stuff. Jordan's being the dick here, he isn't representing Bell at all.

There is the nebulous threat here in that Elite: Dangerous uses Bell's original designs for things like the Anaconda, Cobra and Python. These aren't Braben's to sub-license out, he's merely a licensee himself. That's a fair stretch, however, and unlikely to form the core of any successful challenge.

How was it a dick move? Bell didn't want to contribute to any further games so why should he be entitled to money for stuff he's not involved in?

Is there any proof that the Anaconda, Cobra and Python are solely Bell's work and not collaborations?

Jordan was the one who made the complaint, which was a dick move because he wasn't involved with either the original or any further games. It's also a dick move because in his complaint he acted all huffy about lack of acknowledgement for Bell thus trying to pretend a money grab was about respect for Bell when Bell himself has nothing to do with the complaint

The guy I was quoting said "Braben pulled the dick move of trying not to credit Bell for Frontier: Elite II or Frontier: First Encounters, before a more rational hand told him to stop being a dick.)" and that's what I was curious about.

So, a tabletop game that is based on a game that has no common code of the original game which was the only version Bell had anything to do with did not credit him, and his representative is now angry because of this? And now they won't even provide evidence of answer to any parties at all? There should be a fine for wasting the time of court and halting the progress of an ongoing project causing them extra work and loss of potential customers.

Not quite.

Ian Bell has part-title to much of Elite's universe, designs, setting, etc, as he co-wrote the original Elite. Ian Bell wants nothing further to do with it, so he gave David Braben a perpetual non-exclusive license to the entire thing. This is normal, standard, it's how copyright and other IP laws work. (As an aside, Braben pulled the dick move of trying not to credit Bell for Frontier: Elite II or Frontier: First Encounters, before a more rational hand told him to stop being a dick.)

Later, Bell sold off his interest in the entire thing to this Chris Jordan fellow. So Bell has nothing to do with Jordan other than selling him some stuff. Jordan's being the dick here, he isn't representing Bell at all.

There is the nebulous threat here in that Elite: Dangerous uses Bell's original designs for things like the Anaconda, Cobra and Python. These aren't Braben's to sub-license out, he's merely a licensee himself. That's a fair stretch, however, and unlikely to form the core of any successful challenge.

How was it a dick move? Bell didn't want to contribute to any further games so why should he be entitled to money for stuff he's not involved in?

Is there any proof that the Anaconda, Cobra and Python are solely Bell's work and not collaborations?

Jordan was the one who made the complaint, which was a dick move because he wasn't involved with either the original or any further games. It's also a dick move because in his complaint he acted all huffy about lack of acknowledgement for Bell thus trying to pretend a money grab was about respect for Bell when Bell himself has nothing to do with the complaint

The guy I was quoting said "Braben pulled the dick move of trying not to credit Bell for Frontier: Elite II or Frontier: First Encounters, before a more rational hand told him to stop being a dick.)" and that's what I was curious about.

No quibbles about Jordan, just a plain old copyright troll.

It's polite to credit the original author(s) when you're using their work, concepts or designs in a derivative work. Bell did most of the wireframe and modelling work on Elite, so it was his designs in the two Frontier games. There was a minor spat between the two at the time, which I'm not sure if it ever went legal or not. Either way, Bell got the credit in Frontier.

Later on, Bell made all the old Elite games freely available online, which Braben was pissed about.

So, a tabletop game that is based on a game that has no common code of the original game which was the only version Bell had anything to do with did not credit him, and his representative is now angry because of this? And now they won't even provide evidence of answer to any parties at all? There should be a fine for wasting the time of court and halting the progress of an ongoing project causing them extra work and loss of potential customers.

Not quite.

Ian Bell has part-title to much of Elite's universe, designs, setting, etc, as he co-wrote the original Elite. Ian Bell wants nothing further to do with it, so he gave David Braben a perpetual non-exclusive license to the entire thing. This is normal, standard, it's how copyright and other IP laws work. (As an aside, Braben pulled the dick move of trying not to credit Bell for Frontier: Elite II or Frontier: First Encounters, before a more rational hand told him to stop being a dick.)

Later, Bell sold off his interest in the entire thing to this Chris Jordan fellow. So Bell has nothing to do with Jordan other than selling him some stuff. Jordan's being the dick here, he isn't representing Bell at all.

There is the nebulous threat here in that Elite: Dangerous uses Bell's original designs for things like the Anaconda, Cobra and Python. These aren't Braben's to sub-license out, he's merely a licensee himself. That's a fair stretch, however, and unlikely to form the core of any successful challenge.

How was it a dick move? Bell didn't want to contribute to any further games so why should he be entitled to money for stuff he's not involved in?

Is there any proof that the Anaconda, Cobra and Python are solely Bell's work and not collaborations?

Jordan was the one who made the complaint, which was a dick move because he wasn't involved with either the original or any further games. It's also a dick move because in his complaint he acted all huffy about lack of acknowledgement for Bell thus trying to pretend a money grab was about respect for Bell when Bell himself has nothing to do with the complaint

The guy I was quoting said "Braben pulled the dick move of trying not to credit Bell for Frontier: Elite II or Frontier: First Encounters, before a more rational hand told him to stop being a dick.)" and that's what I was curious about.

No quibbles about Jordan, just a plain old copyright troll.

It's polite to credit the original author(s) when you're using their work, concepts or designs in a derivative work. Bell did most of the wireframe and modelling work on Elite, so it was his designs in the two Frontier games. There was a minor spat between the two at the time, which I'm not sure if it ever went legal or not. Either way, Bell got the credit in Frontier.

Later on, Bell made all the old Elite games freely available online, which Braben was pissed about.

The two guys ain't friends.

Not surprised Braben was pissed at him making the games available for free, that's a real dick move. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

So, a tabletop game that is based on a game that has no common code of the original game which was the only version Bell had anything to do with did not credit him, and his representative is now angry because of this? And now they won't even provide evidence of answer to any parties at all? There should be a fine for wasting the time of court and halting the progress of an ongoing project causing them extra work and loss of potential customers.

Not quite.

Ian Bell has part-title to much of Elite's universe, designs, setting, etc, as he co-wrote the original Elite. Ian Bell wants nothing further to do with it, so he gave David Braben a perpetual non-exclusive license to the entire thing. This is normal, standard, it's how copyright and other IP laws work. (As an aside, Braben pulled the dick move of trying not to credit Bell for Frontier: Elite II or Frontier: First Encounters, before a more rational hand told him to stop being a dick.)

Later, Bell sold off his interest in the entire thing to this Chris Jordan fellow. So Bell has nothing to do with Jordan other than selling him some stuff. Jordan's being the dick here, he isn't representing Bell at all.

There is the nebulous threat here in that Elite: Dangerous uses Bell's original designs for things like the Anaconda, Cobra and Python. These aren't Braben's to sub-license out, he's merely a licensee himself. That's a fair stretch, however, and unlikely to form the core of any successful challenge.

How was it a dick move? Bell didn't want to contribute to any further games so why should he be entitled to money for stuff he's not involved in?

Is there any proof that the Anaconda, Cobra and Python are solely Bell's work and not collaborations?

Jordan was the one who made the complaint, which was a dick move because he wasn't involved with either the original or any further games. It's also a dick move because in his complaint he acted all huffy about lack of acknowledgement for Bell thus trying to pretend a money grab was about respect for Bell when Bell himself has nothing to do with the complaint

The guy I was quoting said "Braben pulled the dick move of trying not to credit Bell for Frontier: Elite II or Frontier: First Encounters, before a more rational hand told him to stop being a dick.)" and that's what I was curious about.

No quibbles about Jordan, just a plain old copyright troll.

Sorry, there's a lot of dickage going around so what I noticed was calling Jordan a dick and apparently my 2am reading comprehension missed Hat's original use of "dick move".

"Although Jordan filed the complaint on behalf of the Ian Bell Elite Rights LLP entity, there is no indication that Bell had any involvement in or knowledge of the RPG campaign’s takedown"

If true, this is a basis for seeking monetary damages from Jordan.

The way the DMCA is written, claiming to represent a rightsholder when you do not is illegal (perjury)

"At some point, Ian Bell allegedly sold his portion of the Elite copyright to Chris Jordan."

You appear to have disregarded the paragraph before the one you're quoting, i.e., the one that focuses on who is a present rightsholder, not merely whether the co-author was participating. Author != rightsholder in perpetuity. So long as Jordan has a piece of paper from Bell that purports to transfer his interest in the copyright, its a losing basis for seeking damages under the DMCA.

Statements like "I’m sad to see you commercially exploiting the work of the one man without which Elite would never have existed" always irk me. This guy himself had zero to do with Elite and is himself exploiting a copyright which he had no hand in making, speaking for a man who willingly gave up his right to anything Elite to David Braben (e.g. the guy who is actually mostly responsible for Elite as a continued series). It's the kind of hubris chest thumping lawyer-speak hyperbole that makes me nauseous.

Do lawyers take course in college to learn how make shit up and lie with a straight face? Like Truth Enhancement or Reality Reinterpretation courses or something? It's a absolutely amazing what kind of bullshit they can come up with and not even blink.

There's a pretty overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence that they are the same person, yes. However, it's not been officially confirmed by anyone (including Jordan, who perhaps unsurprisingly hasn't returned any of my emails).

We need really big financial penalties against DMCA Take downs which are subsequently reversed. They do real financial damage - and there must be a cost.Well the real problem is the DMCA. Vote for politicians who pledge to revoke it.

This is a UK copyright issue, DMCA has jack-shit to do with it apart from kickstarter covering their ass.

1. Frontier is a UK based company.2. Spidermind Games is a UK based company.3. Ian Bell & Chris Jordan both live in the UK.4. David Braben lives and works in the UK.

Anything copyright related would be 'tested' by BRITISH Law (Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003 Act (based on the EU Directive 2001/29/EC)).

NOW SHUT UP about the DMCA.

What kickstarter did was employ a standard US DMCA take-down procedure (Not apply US DMCA Law) to entities it simply didn't apply to. Total Joke.

Kickstarter politely disagrees with you. While the DMCA does not apply, Kickstarter has adopted the basic rules for a DMCA notice.When Kickstarter is notified that a copyright violation is claimed, the project is no longer in compliance with the TOS and is suspended.The UK TOS stops there.

All projects regardless of national origin agree to abide by Kickstarter's Terms of Service as modified for the country in which the project does business (drop down menu to select country) if they wish to raise funds on the Kickstarter website.

The relevant sections are these when the UK TOS is selected.

Quote:

Rules and Conduct

As a condition of use, you promise not to use the Service for any purpose that is prohibited by the Terms of Use or law. The Service is provided only for your own personal, non-commercial use (except as allowed by the terms set forth in the section of these Terms of Use titled, "Projects: Fundraising and Commerce"). You are responsible for all of your activity in connection with the Service. You shall not, and shall not permit any third party using your account to, take any action, or Submit Content, that:

infringes any patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright, right of publicity, or other right of any other person or entity, or violates any law or contract;you know is false, misleading, or inaccurate;

Quote:

Copyright Notifications

Kickstarter will remove infringing materials if properly notified that Content infringes copyright. If you believe that your work has been copied in a way that constitutes copyright infringement, please notify Kickstarter's Copyright Agent by submitting this form. You can also submit a notification by emailing us at copyright@kickstarter.com. Your notification should contain the following information:

an electronic or physical signature of the person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the copyright interest;a description of the copyrighted work that you claim has been infringed;a description of where the material that you claim is infringing is located on the Site, sufficient for Kickstarter to locate the material;your address, telephone number, and email address;a statement by you that you have a good faith belief that the disputed use is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law; anda statement by you that the information in your notice is accurate and, under penalty of perjury, that you are the copyright owner or authorized to act on the copyright owner's behalf.Our designated copyright agent for notice of alleged copyright infringement is:

We need really big financial penalties against DMCA Take downs which are subsequently reversed. They do real financial damage - and there must be a cost.Well the real problem is the DMCA. Vote for politicians who pledge to revoke it.

Bolded is stupid and dumb. I will explain.

One of the key provisions of the DMCA is the "safe harbor" provision, which gives websites immunity from copyright infringement claims as long as they have a (properly functioning) system for accepting and processing DMCA takedown requests. This is the reason sites like YouTube and Facebook (let alone sites with user forums like Ars) can even function in the United States. Without it, any website could be held liable for any copyright infringement occurring through their site, even if it's solely user-generated. There wouldn't be a takedown notice requirement, you could go straight to the lawsuit and sue both the website and the individual user for the infringement.

Think about what video sites like YouTube would be like without this. They'd be paranoid about posting videos that might have copyrighted material. All videos would need to be pre-screened before being publicly shared. There's no way people could post videos quickly, and the maximum number of videos they could realistically approve per day would be capped by manpower at ridiculously low levels. A site like YouTube could not grow to YouTube's current size, not without hiring half of Arizona to do copyright pre-screening full-time.

The takedown mechanism gives sites the freedom to just let users keep posting videos, knowing they can go back and pull any copyright-violating videos on request without debilitating legal damages. If you think the process needs tweaked in order to reduce false takedown requests, that's fine. However, simply repealing the DMCA would make rightsholders very happy and enable them to sue websites out of existence over user-posted content. After all, the DMCA is the only thing stopping them from doing that now.